Tuesday, July 24, 2018

Let's put public education on the front pages, the front burner and the daily news feed

It is really no longer
reasonable or acceptable to relegate matters, issues, policies and budgets
dedicated to education to the “family” pages of our dailies, not to the back
pages where there are no ‘family’ pages.

In America, public
education, like most of the “public square” is being decimated by the trump
administration. Like the EPA, it is being replaced with conditions and
regulations and options that obsequiously bow to the interests of the private
sector. Corporate America is now ruling in the United States.

In Ontario, there is a
rather heated debate over a so-called sex-education curriculum designed and
implemented by the previous Liberal government to which right-wing
conservatives are strongly opposed. Parents’ “rights” must trump the public’s imposing
a view on sex-ed that might result in increased promiscuity and enhanced fear
among young people. The dangers of the internet, notwithstanding, parents are
the first and primary educators on matters of sexuality, as the opponents’
argument goes.

There was a time when
the titles of novels deemed to be too risqué were the targets of conservative
parents who, at that time, feared the mention or depiction of intercourse in a
novel written for adults, and taught in senior high school classes, no matter
how sensitively and articulately the scene(s) were depicted, would result in
increased promiscuity, venereal diseases and an irretrievable slide in public
morality.

Trouble is, education
and schools are about much more than the boundary on adolescent morality. And
in an age when public airwaves, the internet and the entertainment menu to
which all of us are being exposed are all overflowing with images and innuendo
around the human body and sexual relationships, whether through wardrobe,
dialogue or physical acts. As in most generations, it would be reasonable to
conclude that parents are less familiar with the breadth and depth of the
available invasive sources of much of this material than are their kids. Public
health resources are also gathering and interpreting public data that tell
them, and through them the rest of the public, what they are witnessing in
emergency rooms, public health clinics, doctors’ offices and other agencies
dealing with public health issues.

Of course, there is a
fluid scale for if and when each young person is “ready” and “open” and strong
enough to integrate “public” information into their view of their world and
their relationship to that world. And, while “one size does not fit all” is a
reasonable argument for parental control of sex education, anyone who thinks
believes that parents are doing or have done an adequate job in conferring the
complexities of sexual relationships to their children has been living under a
rock for most of the last century.

There is a place for
the “public” to participate, along with parents in the design or curriculum,
and, in saying that, the public representatives have to be cognizant of the
depth and breadth of the grasp of those individuals on both the private issues
facing families and the public issues faced by the relevant culture. Culture
“wars” so called, have taken a high profile in discussions of all issues these
days, represented by two main factions: conservative and somewhat liberal,
although even the latter category has
been pulled to the right in the last decade or so.

Employment standards
have been gutted through the erosion of labour organizations; taxes have been
skewed in favour of private enterprise, and corporations, in the belief that
the public sector squanders “hard-earned tax-payer money” and also that “the
most effective engine for reducing unemployment is the private sector. While
there is some validity in this shibboleths, they are not holy writ, although
their proponents act as if they believe they are. However sacrificing public
interests like the environment and education to the private sector (not only
literally private charter schools but also to a mind-set that elevates the
for-profit view far above the public interest) is both dangerous and extremely
short-sighted.

To simplify, or to
reduce public debate about schools to money and sex, the way too many public
debates have come to do, is a scathing indictment of the political class that
participates in such reductionisms. The potential and demonstrated success in
facilitating a capacity to accommodate complex inter-racial, inter-ethnic,
inter-linguistic, and inter-ability is a matter of public record. Further, the
segregation of schools by race or ethnicity, also plays into the hands of those
who seek dominant control of their child’s experience, shielding him/her from
the complexities of the streets, restaurants, movie houses, dances and parties he
will experience.

Public education, as
has been argued more forcefully and articulately by people like John Ralston
Saul is the cornerstone of democracy.But what elite, or elite wannabee supports the messiness of democracy,
when the perfection and purity and “security” ofreligious, private, charter and for-profit
schools can and do eliminate all of that messy complexity, especially for young
people too naïve and innocent to be exposed to such “trauma”.

Religious
fundamentalists, evangelicals, corporatists, ethnic purists and public
officials dependent to and obsequious before their flush donors all comprise
the forces that are already eroding public education. Parents of children with
intellectual, emotional, physical and social impairments, on the other hand,
are left to fight for the scraps that fall under the tables from debates over
budgets for public education. Resources that would clearly prevent much of the
later social unrest on our streets are withheld from public education budgets
so that more incendiary issues like sex-ed can distract from the public debate
that is needed to protect vulnerable students.

And the public,
including the media, fall for this ruse every time. Stephen Lewis, back in the
late sixties, delivered a speech to high school teachers, as leader of the New
Democrats on Ontario, in which he noted, with derision, that coverage of public
education was reduced to numbers: dollars and students. We have never really
recovered from that indictment. We suffer from a surfeit of public debate about
money and sex, as the condiments to a dish of depleting student numbers and the
resulting closing of school buildings. Just last week, the Ford conservative
government eliminated some $100 million budgeted by the former Liberal
government for school restoration and repair, in order to better afford the
budget promise of extracting the province of Ontario from all environmental
protection projects of their predecessors, and deliver on that 10-cent
reduction per litre on vehicle fuel (thereby increasing CO2 emissions into the
atmosphere).

The sex-ed debate,
naturally, gives the government cover for their other “school” and education
decisions, none of which are in the “public interest” in the broad sense of
that phrase. But, the “public interest” now takes a back seat to the private
interests of their corporate friends, just as it does in the United States.

Any attempt to broaden
and deepen the public debate about the intricacies and complexities, the
potential and the rewards of a vibrant public education system now faces a wall
of public “expectation” that such issues do not concern the private lives of
most people, that such issues are of interest merely to those who volunteer to
serve on school councils, or offer their names for school board elections.
Sadly, the issues that schools confront every day in every classroom, like
collaboration, team-building, conflict resolution, compromise, awakening to the
indigenous issues of other ethnicities go under the radar of the public
television screen, and the tablet. That is, unless and until some disturbance
disturbs that quietude, a solo shooter kills and maims the innocents, or some
teacher crosses some professional boundary.

There are numerous
obstacles to overcome in order to turn the minds of the editors of daily
newspapers, television and radio stations around from their stereotypical
mind-set that stories about schools and kids do not rate their best reporters,
nor their front pages. So transfixed by the sensational and especially the
negative sensational news story, unless a kid is killed or maimed in a school
yard or gym, the story does not rate prime coverage. It is used as a “filler”
to fill empty space after the “real” news stories have been laid out.

Pitching to editors,
and advertisers (because if advertisers were convinced to place their ads on a
page with an assurance that educational news stories would complete those
pages, editors might be more inclined to listen to school board, teacher and
administration officials seeking to get more visible coverage. Of course, for
the school systems, there is a risk that not all of the stories will be
“positive” but the benefits outweigh the risks.

And in covering
“education,” editors will have to stretch their gaze beyond the athletic
scores, to include the debating clubs and competitions, the drama clubs and
competitions, the science fairs and any new discovery by a student, as well as
foreign and national trips that reach beyond the parochial comfort zone of both
current readers, editors and advertisers.

The cynicism
surrounding public school teacher labour contracts, another of the “black eyes”
the education system has been enduring for decades (after all teachers only
work five or six hours a day, never on weekends, and never during Christmas,
Spring or Summer holidays, according to the myth that hangs over the
profession). Countering such myopic and disdainful reductionism, by both boards
and teachers’ federations, parties who often do not see eye to eye during
negotiations, will make it more necessary for both sides to seek common ground,
and enhance their mutual respect, a by-product worthy of considerable effort in
itself.

Stories, for example,
that boards of education failed to hire male teachers for the elementary panel
for many years, would not have a place to hide from the view of parents, who
vote for board members. Stories of teacher and student sacrifice and accommodation
of diversity among both staff and student populations, bridges being built in
obscurity, would serve as both conversation topics and role models for enhanced
racial integration and acceptance across the local culture. Turn-around
stories, in which students reversed what previously were less than outstanding
reports would not only ennoble such students, but serve also as fodder for
others whose current path seems to be a downward spiral. Of course, the
permission of the student and his family would have to be garnered prior to the
publication of such stories, and a final vetting process would have to ensure
the future repercussions of such stories would not backfire on the subject.
Confidentiality, naturally is very important, and none of these ideas would get
out the gate without an oversight panel including students who could and would
vet the process and the final publication.

There have to be
legitimate ways to bring the education system out of the classroom and into the
public square for so many clear, positive and progressive purposes.

Another large obstacle
that needs to be hurdled is the penchant for privacy and secrecy and the
negative impact of comparisons and competitions (both covert and overt) among
and between teachers, principals, administrators and boards. And undoubtedly,
there would be a period of trial and working out the “bugs” before full
exposure of the school system could or would be achieved in a manner that
comported with the ethical, legal, cultural and educational expectations and
standards currently extant.

There are “special
events” nuanced stories of honour, achievement, innovation, surprise and
occasionally disappointment that walk through the corridors of elementary and
secondary schools every day. And there are educational precepts and philosophic
foundations that are in constant tension in each classroom and school and
school system. “Nice,” “comfortable” “friendly” and “motivating” are adjectives
ascribed to both the professional and learner populations. Yet, there is much
more go be discerned, discussed and learned given the rather copious trainloads
of public cash that underwrite the school systems.